Why Hopkins would beat Monzon at MW

It's Felix Sturm german paper title logic :good

As far as this fight:
Hops has a speed and skill edge as far as versatility goes IMO. Monzon has the edge in power, beard, strength and size. Ring IQ/generalship is pretty even though. I'm not sure if hops is mobile enough to neutralize Monzon's physical advantages, and even if he manages to neutralize the range disparity I see him having a lot of issues physically clinch and mauling someone as strong as Escopeta. It's not that Hops lacks ability, I just don't think he's the right man for this job.

 

I think it actually enhanced it because when he took on Valdez, who was in his prime, he was past prime himself and still beat him. Twice. And thus proved that him not fighting Valdez before didn´t mean much. If he would never have fought Valdez than you would be right though.

Oh, so now you are only talking about Griffith? Sorry but if Monzon struggled with his opponents then what did Hagler do with some of his? Of course Griffith posed some problems. Griffith would trouble any fighter from ww to mw. Nevertheless, Monzon took care of business.

btw. Monzon beat Griffith. Hagler lost to Leonard.

 

I've always picked Monzon before, as he was a better ring general. But now I'm not too sure Hopkins was such a skilled operator its hard to pick who would controll the bout.

 

Monzon out thinks him to a UD. Its a close fight but a very comfortable UD with Monzon just piping a large majority of the rounds.

Giggle if Bhop wants to rough him up. He killed his own wife lets not get him angry Bhop.

 

I'd rate even a Tom Bogs over most guys Hopkins defended against at middleweight.

 

Doesn't take much of a man to accomplish such a "feat".

 

No, it's a very dubious distinction to say the least.

 

I have been thinking about this match up, I reckon B-HOP will get off first in this, or he has the capability too, and this will allow him to win it.

 

Bogs??? Bogs was probably Monzon's WORST challenger. A typical stand straight up jab jab jab right hand european amateur. He had a total of three fights outside of Scandinavia and lost all of them. A lot of the decisions he won in Denmark were like a lot of Danish decisions: Fishy to say the least. I have no hesitation in saying that Johnson, Echols, Trinidad, Joppy, DLH, Vanderpool, Allen, Council, and Eastman would beat Bogs. Id also give Holmes a good shot at it and thats not even mentioning the guys like Pavlik, Taylor (who Hopkins lost to but I thought beat in both fights), Pascal (again a victory for Hopkins IMO), and Tarver who while not MW wins certainly cant be ignored when stacking resumes up against each other.

In my opinion Bogs and Moyer were neck and neck for Monzon's worst title defense and were miles behind a lot of guys Hopkins fought.

 

Griffith is no Ray Leonard IMO. Still, plenty of people felt that Hagler won that fight. Anyway, I said that he struggled with Griffith and that Benvenuti had his moments. You might wanna reread my post if you don't believe that.

Got the job done vs. Griffith? He was 35 years old and well past prime. The rematch was close and a case can be made that the fight was even!

I'm not saying Monzon wasn't great. I just get tired of the people who act like he was unbeatable. He lost 3 times and drew 9 (that's a lot of draws???) He also won a few close fights. He could have very easily had 13 or 14 losses had a few judges given the other guy just one more of those "close rounds that could have went either way" if ya know what I mean. Briscoe went to Argentina and fought Monzon to a draw in their first fight. What if he would have got the win?

 

Yeah, Monzon was a 1st class piece of shlt! In a class all his own to be honest.

 

We'll just agree to disagree then, i don't need a running commentary of his performances in that time period, you're talking to someone who has seen plenty of him in the 70s here.

No he wasn't ahead of the pack anymore per se, but the crux of the matter is if you really watch most of those fights and see someone of comparable ability to an old 00's Holyfield well that's beyond me.I invite

Especially the one circa the first Monzon fight(which was fairly comprehensive on the careds and onesided after the first third imo) or hell i'll give you the second one either.Griffith threw more quality punches and showed more finesse in that fight than Holyfield did in damn near ten years of unbalanced toiling

In fact i invite anyone here to watch those two Monzon griff fights and compare them to Evanders exploits after the 90s, just so i can remember to disregard the opinion of anyone who happens to agree with you.:goodWe all have our stronger points in in watching and analysing this sport, perhaps you should stick to the great research and educated(if overly heavy handed) opinions you can provide on the '10s/20s etc because these ill-thought out aggressive opinions on fighters like Buchanan, Monzon and Griffith are not your forte.

And fair enough if someone thinks the post-monzon 2 Griffith was average or nondescript, i wouldn't argue heavily there, but i personally still saw someone who was capable of performing the competent crafty cute "opponent" role.Someone who could still show up the flaws in the average to good younger contenders.

You had to be **** or of seriously marginal talent for old Holyfield to be competitive with you.

 

You may not agree with my opinion but dont act like the only era I know what Im talking about in is the 1910s and 1920s cause I can pretty much guarantee Ive seen more footage on Monzon and his opponents than you. I stand by the fact that Griffith was well past his best and pretty geriatric when he fought Monzon the second time and he gave Monzon hell. You act like that elevates Griffith. I think thats more a reflection on Monzon.

I have Griffith-Monzon 1, McAloon, Muniz, Lopez, Kechichien, Bouttier, Cohen 2, and Monzon 2 from that period and the only guy out of those fights that I have that Griffith didnt struggle with was Muniz who was basically still just starting out. How do you explain Monzon doing little better against Griffith than a guy like Kechichien who was a weight class below and probably not even a top 30 guy from 147 to 160? Or even Denucci who was TEN YEARS past his prime??


I wont even argue you jumping from saying Griffith was a top 15 fighter when he lost to Minter to back tracking and saying now that he was good enough to show the flaws in any average to good contender when he clearly wasnt, especially in light of his record. Bonnatez was decidedly BELOW average and he made Griffith look pretty ordinary.

The bottom line is you are talking about a guy who was clearly faded and clearly struggling with even marginal contenders. A guy who had only faced two MW contenders in two years and didnt win either of those fights. He was literally handed a title shot and then gave Monzon hell. That looks great for Griffin, who as I said went on to post a 50/50 record over the rest of his career but looks pretty horrible for Monzon and that version of Griffith is probably in the top two or three of Monzon's challengers. Im sorry but Im just not that blown away by that.

Answer me this: If John Marc Mormeck had been fighting CWs for the last 2 years, stepped up and fought Eddie Chambers and Chris Arreola failing to win either of those fights, then fought one of the Klitchkos on pretty even terms to a decision loss would you be pumping up Mormeck and saying that didnt reflect well on the Klitchkos? Because thats essentially what happened here.

The thing is, Ive said all along Monzon was good. I just dont think he was any where near unbeatable, I think hes overrated BY SOME and that his reign as a champion is not that impressive. Monzon is still one of the best MWs and very tough to beat. I just think Hopkins is a damn tough matchup for him.

 

I was recently reading an article on Monzon that detailed his life and I didnt realize just how bad he was. Even long before he killed his girlfriend he had been a brutal woman beater, I mean far beyond the brutality that you hear about on a regular basis. It sounds awful to say that in that way. I dont mean to minimize the acts of any abusive man but Monzon's was pretty horrific. Honestly he sounds a little like a nut. Jekyll and Hyde. Supposedly he could be very charismatic but could snap and be almost unrecognizable.

Im curious if something happened to him after his career, before prison, if he was sick or something. I have some footage of him on a talk show and he is REALLY skinny. He looks very gaunt, weathered, and sickly. Its from the mid 80s. I almost wondered if he had AIDS or something.

 

Didn't the rematch with Griffith take place just after Monzon was shot in the shoulder? Are was it just prior? If it's the former I think it's safe to disregard Monzon's failings in that fight. I also tend to think it was Griffith's sort of "last hurrah" type performances, as I thought he fought very well by comparison to his prior/subsequent efforts.